TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2010

Decision time in Burma

B

by U Win Tin

urma’s military regime has forced our party, the National League for De- mocracy, to make a tough decision on

whether we will continue to operate legally. The ruling generals, known as the State

Peace and Development Council (SPDC), is- sued a set of unjust electoral laws this month that threatened to abolish our party if we did not re-register at the election com- mission within 60 days. We know the cruel nature of the regime.

We did not expect the electoral laws it es- tablished would offer a semblance of fair- ness. But we also did not expect that the re- gime would use its laws to remove our lead- er, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and all political prisoners from the political process. Once again the regime has defied the will of the people of Burma and the international community by disregarding their call for transparent, free and fair elections that in- clude all parties. The Political Party Registration Law bans all political prisoners from participat- ing in elections by voting and contesting, forming a political party, or joining a party. Parties must make sure that political pris- oners are not included in their member- ship and must pledge in writing that they will obey and protect the country’s consti- tution and abide by its election laws. They are also required to participate in the elec-

FAREED ZAKARIA

‘Swing for the fences’

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on boosting technology

During the 2008 campaign — before the global economic crisis — Barack Obama said the top three things he wanted to ac- complish as president included withdraw- ing troops from Iraq, reforming health care and putting in place a new energy policy. A health-care bill has passed, and U.S. combat troops are on their way out of Iraq later this year. Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and The Post recently discussed the third priority with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe Obama’s en-

ergy policy in a few sentences?

A: We look at all the factors and we say,

How can we get to the lowest possible level of carbon as quickly as possible and not only at the lowest cost, but with the greatest possible eco- nomic opportunity for the U.S.?

When people look at the fiscal stimulus, some say, “If only they’d taken this oppor- tunity to make major in- vestments in energy, science and infrastructure.” Do you believe you are making those investments?

I would say that we are making those investments, though in some areas the ef- fort is just to get something started. The Department of Energy is responsible for the entire energy innovation

What is the blue-sky technology that you

are most hopeful about?

I see the cost of [solar] photovoltaics go- ing down and down. Right now it’s about $4 per watt for full installation. In 10 years’ time, it will certainly be less than $2. If it’s $1 or $1.25 then everyone will put it up without subsidy. What else do I see? A new generation of biofuels that are direct substi- tutes for gasoline — so, better than ethanol —using agricultural waste: weed straw, rice straw, corn cobs, wood surplus.

If you look at the top 30 companies in bat- tery, wind and solar technology, there are only four American firms on the list. Do you think that will change? Are we going to be- come the leader in clean energy?

Well, I certainly hope so. We still have a lot of really high-end, in- novative stuff. But you also need to send consistent sig- nals to allow that to be de- ployed at scale. That’s a pol- icy issue — technology pol- icies, R&D policies, incentives for high-value manufacturing. We are very determined. Can we lead the world in the lowest cost? No. But we can lead the world in high-quality stuff that will create quality jobs for Americans.

CLIFF OWEN/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

chain — from basic science research to ap- plied research, to even beginning to help de- ploy and scale [new technologies]. You fund for a very short period of time — two years, three years maximum — in hopes of open- ing up something big. So we are saying, “Swing for the fences.” Now if you swing for the fences, you may strike out more. But we want a few home runs.

Is the “smart grid” the Interstate High- way System of the 21st century?

The analogy is very apt. It will take sever- al decades to be able to get this to [work], and the cost will be very large. Before I took this job I [participated in] a National Acad- emy study called “America’s Energy Future.” The total cost, public and private, that I heard was half a trillion dollars or more.

We still overwhelmingly use fossil fuels —

renewables, all told, probably add up to 5 percent [of U.S. energy consumption]. What’s a realistic 10-year goal?

We’re at about 4 percent now. President Obama made a target to double that by 2012 and we are on target. I expect that to contin- ue. In 10 years’ time we hope to have carbon capture and sequestration technologies starting to be deployed. Hopefully we’ll have restarted the nuclear industry and we’ll be building several nuclear reactors.

Do you think that having

a price on carbon is cru- cial?

I do. I absolutely believe

a price on carbon is essential — that will send a very important long-term signal. [But] if it’s five years from now, I think it will be truly tragic, because other countries, notably China, are moving ahead so aggres- sively. They see this as their economic op- portunity to lead in the next industrial revolution.

When you look at the cap-and-trade bill

that is floating around Congress, is it strong enough to do what you think needs to be done?

This is my belief: Get it going. The Clean

Air Act in the early ’90s started slowly. But it got [things] going. The important thing was that the cost ended up being far lower than anybody projected, including the [Environ- mental Protection Agency], who you might think have a vested interest in trying to low- ball the cost. It was four times lower than even the EPA estimate. Once you get it going and start making progress, very clever peo- ple start to dream up better solutions. So rather than wait around for a perfect bill that that might be delayed for four or five years, or forever, get it going.

Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@

fareedzakaria.com.

POST PARTISAN

Excerpts from The Post’s opinion blog, updated daily at washingtonpost.com/postpartisan

JONATHAN CAPEHART

Michael Steele’s high living

Republican National Committee Chair-

man Michael Steele’s high livin’ among the party’s deep-pocketed donors has been to- taled up: For February alone, according to expenses filed with the Federal Election Commission last week, Steele’s use of pri- vate planes and private cars came to $17,514 and $12,691, respectively. That’s a good gig. On Monday, the Daily Caller was the first to report that “A February RNC trip to Cali- fornia . . . included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons” and about $1,946 “at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage- themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.”

An RNC spokesperson insisted that Steele “was never at the location in ques- tion, he had no knowledge of the expendi- ture, nor does he find the use of committee funds at such a location at all acceptable.” Well, that’s a relief. But why on earth was the expense approved and reimbursed in the first place? “The committee has re- quested that the monies be returned to the committee,” the spokesperson told me. Re- quested? The RNC told The Post on Monday that it

is investigating the disbursement to Erik Brown of Orange, Calif., who has donated about $10,000 to Republican candidates. An RNC spokesman told The Post that he “can’t comment on him” when asked about Brown but did say that Brown is “not on committee staff” and that the visit to the Voyeur nightclub “was not an RNC event.” Steele has raised $96.2million during his tenure, but he has spent $109.6 million. I’m sure GOP donors are thrilled to know where their dwindling money is going.

MADALYN RUGGIERO/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A property belonging to David Brian Stone, the leader of the Hutaree militia, the day after an FBI raid on the group in Clayton, Mich.

EUGENE ROBINSON

Where the rhetoric of rage can lead

doubters that there is good reason to worry about right-wing, anti-govern- ment extremism — and potential vio- lence — in the Age of Obama. I put the word Christian in quotes because anyone who plots to assassi- nate law enforcement officers, as a fed- eral indictment alleges members of the Hutaree militia did, is no follower of Christ. According to federal pros- ecutors, the Hutaree — the word’s not in my dictionary, but its Web site claims it means “Christian warrior” — are convinced that their enemies in- clude “state and local law enforce- ment, who are deemed ‘foot soldiers’ of the federal government, federal law enforcement agencies and employees, participants in the ‘New World Order,’ and anyone who does not share in the Hutaree’s beliefs.”

T

According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local po- lice officers. “Possible such acts which were discussed,” the indictment says, “included killing a member of law en- forcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergen- cy call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral proces- sion motorcade” with homemade bombs.

Nine members of the Hutaree were named in the indictment. Eight were arrested during weekend FBI raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana; one sus- pect remains at large. The group’s Web site shows members in camouflage outfits traipsing through woods in “training” exercises. They could be out for an afternoon of paintball, except for the loony rhetoric about “sword and flame” and the page, labeled “Gear,” that links to several gun deal- ers. Along with numerous weapons of- fenses, the Hutaree are charged with sedition. The episode highlights the obvious:

For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right. It is disingenuous for mainstream

purveyors of incendiary far-right rhet- oric to dismiss groups such as the Hu- taree by saying that there are “crazies on both sides.” This simply is not true. There was a time when the far left

he arrests of members of a Michigan-based “Christian” mi- litia group should convince

was a spawning ground for political violence. The first big story I covered was the San Francisco trial of heiress Patricia Hearst, who had been kid- napped and eventually co-opted by the Symbionese Liberation Army — a far- left group whose philosophy was as apocalyptic and incoherent as that of the Hutaree. There are aging radicals in Cuba today who got to Havana by hijacking airplanes in the 1970s. Left- wing radicals caused mayhem and took innocent lives. But for the most part, far-left vio- lence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Grem- lin. An anti-globalization movement, including a few window-smashing an- archists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environ- mental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.

By contrast, there has been explo- sive growth among far-right, militia- type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, “constitution- alists,” tax protesters and religious sol- diers determined to kill people to up- hold “Christian” values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been in- filtrated and dismantled by author- ities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was au- thored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timo- thy McVeigh’s bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. It is dishonest for right-wing com-

mentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of po- litical violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction — the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day — and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies — is calibrated not to inform but to incite. Demagogues scream at people that

their government is illegitimate, that their country has been “taken away,” that their elected officials are “trai- tors” and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn’t be surprised if some listen- ers take them literally.

The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today at www.

washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address is

eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

KLMNO

R

A25

RICHARD COHEN

tion. Failure to comply with these re- strictions will lead to abolishment of the party. For me, the decision was simple: No. We cannot expel Aung San Suu Kyi and others who are or have been imprisoned under this corrupt and unfair legal system. With- out them, our party would be nothing. They are in prison because of their belief in democracy and the rule of law. Their imme-

Our National League for Democracy won’t accept corrupt, unfair electoral laws designed to shut us out and perpetuate the regime’s rule.

diate release and participation in Burma’s political process are necessary for a cred- ible democratic process. We do not accept the regime’s unilater-

ally drafted constitution, designed to legal- ize permanent military dictatorship. The referendum to ratify this constitution was conducted on the heels of Cyclone Nargis in 2008; it was “approved” by force and fraud. Our objective is to reject this sham consti- tution and create one that will guarantee democracy, human rights, justice, the rule of law and equality among all ethnic na- tionalities through an all-inclusive, genu- ine political dialogue. We cannot pledge to obey the sham constitution. True democ-

racy will not come from this process. It is not easy to make such a decision for an organization. Aung San Suu Kyi said she would “not even think” of registering her party for the polls. Yet as a leader who be- lieves in democracy, she stressed that she would let the party decide for itself. On Monday, all of my colleagues agreed to con- front these injustices together. Some believe that the continued legal

status of our party is more important. If our party is not legal, the thinking goes, how can we work for the people of Burma? The United Nations and some countries have asked the regime to change these unfair laws and to allow Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners to participate in the election. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a meeting of his “Group of Friends on Myanmar” to discuss the situation in Bur- ma. We have also heard that the U.S. gov- ernment is “closely considering” the recent report and recommendationsmade by U.N. Special Rapporteur Tomás Ojea Quintana, including his suggestion that the United Nations establish a “commission of in- quiry” to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity in our country. This la- tent support from international voices may not be enough. My colleagues may have jus- tifiable concerns that international voices and statements are not complemented by effective measures to change Burma’s polit- ical crisis. Our party was born out of the 1988 popu-

lar democracy uprising with the noble in- tention to carry out the unfinished work of those who sacrificed their lives for free- dom, justice and democracy. We won a landslide victory in the 1990

election and have been the leader of Bur- ma’s democracy movement for more than two decades. But because we refuse to bow to these unjust election “laws,” our party will be abolished by the regime soon. Still, the NLD will not disappear. We will be among the people, with the people. We will continue to fight for democracy, human rights and equality among all ethnic na- tionalities, by peaceful means. I hope the international community will stand with us. The governments of the world should declare that they reject the regime’s election and prearranged out- come, and pressure the regime to make substantive and positive change for Burma, beginning with the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and the cessation of the regime’s mili- tary campaign against ethnic minorities. The regime should negotiate with Burma’s democracy forces, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic representatives for a peaceful solution toward national reconciliation and true democracy.

UWin Tin is a member of the Central Executive Committee and a founder of Burma’s National League for Democracy party. He was a political prisoner from 1989 to 2008.

Google’s lonely stand

History and the Last Man.” In it, he argued that the end of the Cold War represented the triumph of liberal democracy as the “final form of human government.” Re- cently, Sergey Brin, Google’s co- founder and a thoughtful man, begged to differ. The Great Wall of China stood in the way. Google, as you must know, has pulled out of China proper and re- located to Hong Kong. The com- pany took this action after it was hacked in China by persons appar- ently looking to spy on the e-mails of Chinese dissidents. Those who know Brin, though, say that the hacking was just the last straw. Mostly, he was weary of adhering to China’s censorship policies, which, he said in a brief interview with the Wall Street Journal, had gotten increasingly severe after the 2008 Olympics. When the world looked away, China took off the gloves. For Brin, this was something of

I

a personal disappointment. He is a Russian immigrant and the son of a man who suffered under the old communist regime. He is one of those people who thought that China’s acceptance of American companies would liberalize the country. Above all, the Internet was going to do wonders. It was the ultimate liberalizing machine —a communications medium that by its very nature could evade the censors with their clumsy, antedi- luvian red pencils. Bill Clinton, no naif about anything, struck just the right cliche when in 2000 he mocked China’s attempt to control the Web: “Good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” Now look: The Jell-O’s on the wall. Maybe more to the point, the op- timistic note struck by Fukuyama and others has been forcefully chal- lenged, if not rebutted, by the Chi- nese. Their view of progress, they emphasize, is not our own. The free expression of ideas leads to chaos. Dissent is treason. China is too un- manageable not to be severely and ruthlessly managed. The Internet should not be a force for liberaliza- tion. It should be a force to encour- age conformity. Let a thousand in- tellectual flowers bloom — as long as they all bloom identically. What’s particularly chilling about the Chinese position is that it is unapologetic. From Beijing, you do not get sweet equivocations and buttery lies — the adamant claim that there is no censorship or, as with the old Soviet Union, the insistence that all those dour people you saw on the street were really brimming with happiness. On the contrary, the Chinese say that their system is their system — take it or leave it. Brin and Google chose to leave it. I quote now from this year’s

State Department report on hu- man rights regarding China: “On Feb. 8, Li Qiaoming was reported- ly beaten to death in a detention center. . . . Prison officials initially claimed he died after accidentally running into a wall during a game of ‘hide and seek.’ ” I quote some more: “In March Li

Wenyan died while in custody. . . . The Xinhua official press quoted a senior prison official as stating that Li died while having a ‘nightmare.’ ” I could quote even more. But the point is that this is China and this is where American firms have elected to do business. I under- stand the constraints and imper- atives — the amorality of business, the virtue of profit, the belief that shareholder equity trumps human rights, the vast size of that vast market and how, by golly, if they could open a plant in China they could make that country a bit more like Switzerland. This bald hypocrisy is why virtu- ally no American firm has joined Google — not Microsoft and not Yahoo — or said they could not do business in a place where people were seized by the police and ex- ecuted without so much as even a show trial. Business, as we all know from the “Godfather” mov- ies, is business. Maybe in the end, the Internet

will actually ameliorate conditions in China and maybe the Chinese will succumb to exogenous pres- sures and liberalize their system. But Google, which admirably walked away from the biggest cell- phone market in the world — that and not its search engine was the real prize — has shown that in the meantime the price of doing busi- ness in China is not its overvalued currency but its undervalued hu- man rights. In this sense, history has not ended. Along with too many American businesses, it has just moved offshore.

cohenr@washpost.com

n 1992, Francis Fukuyama pub- lished a book with what may be the best title ever: “The End of Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58